Is the Blair a Catholic?

[keithphillips]

colonel wrote:

> Yes he could, but it wouldn't really have helped the peace and
> reconciliation process in Northern Ireland.

Yes that's a good point.

Tony Blair has done a great deal of good for this country in the last 10 years, but this is the main thing he will be rembered for. John Major also played a part in this.

Keith

[Peter]

As todays papers pointed out, unless he has radically changed his views on homosexuality, stem cell research etc, then its just anothe stunt, but for what purpose? What does he get out of it?

[Pervert]

If he is a committed Christian, and believes in the whole thing, then what he gets out of it is forgiveness for all his sins and a guaranteed spot in the hereafter. The church was very good at providing these get-out clauses for mediaeval monarchs who tyranised, tortured and murdered, so why not for someone like Tone.

[Pervert]

It would have been Major's triumph and place in history, except he bottled it and needed the Ulster Unionists to keep his party in power. Sir Robert Peel put people before party and repealed the Corn Laws; Major preferred power to brokering peace in Northern Ireland.

[Trumpton]

Peter wrote:

> What does he get out of it?

Some weird sense of redemption and justification for all the ill's he has inflicted on us.

[colonel]

Peel indeed did just that. In fact, a split in the Tories ensued, with Peel leading a minority- a sizeable one at that- in a de-facto party called the Peelites. [Clever, eh?]

Peel always wanted to reunite the Tories on a free trade platform, but never succeeded. He never held power again.

After he died, a meeting in Bristol agreed to merge the Peelite Tories with the toff Whigs and smaller Radical parties into a new, pro-free trade, anti- Tory party. Called the Liberal Party.

After waiting his turn- as had been agreed- behind Whig leader Palmerston and heir apparent Russell, the Peelites last leader became Liberal leader. He had been Peel's protege, his favoured replacement and his Chancellor when both were Conservatives. His name? Gladstone!

[keithphillips]

Peter wrote:

> As todays papers pointed out, unless he has radically changed
> his views on homosexuality, stem cell research etc, then its
> just anothe stunt, but for what purpose? What does he get out
> of it?

Its not a stunt Peter, he genuinely beliefs that this is what he should do, and he will do it regardless of what others think. No one can blame him for this.

As usual the newspapers have got it wrong.

[mart]

First step on the road to sainthood.

Mart

[mart]

Dibble dribbled " The only people who covert (sic) to Catholicism in this country are snotty, middleclass, elitist fuckers and luvies who take the Guardian"
Where is your evidence for this sweeping generalisation?

Mart

[Peter]

keithphillips wrote:



> As usual the newspapers have got it wrong.


Got what wrong? Asking the question at what point did the man who allowed 'gay marriage' to become legal on his watch decide that homosexuality is a sin?

Because you can't be a catholic without believing that, unless of course he's become a standard religious nutter who cherry picks the good bits he wants to abide by and convieniently forgets the rules he doesn't like.